I forgot...
Were we supposed to go to war with Iran? I ask because I just drove in to work listening to a radio program where they were talking about the likelihood of war with Iran and one of the guys seemed pretty convinced it was going to happen. On the other hand, the president of Iran - He Whose Name I Cannot Spell - was recently talking about sexuality at a major American university. And the top button of his shirt is always undone...Perhaps not quite stylish (otherwise I've been stylish for decades) but certainly relaxed.
Also, since Colin Powell is no longer around, who will convince Americans and the world that there is a case for war? Does Iran have nukes or not? Anyone know? I would ask the president (of our country, not Iran) but as the feather duster said to the candelabra in Beauty and the Beast "I've been burned by you before."
If Iran does have nukes, or even if they might have nukes, wouldn't invading them or bombing them give them a reason to use them? Of course, if they don't have nukes, then is there another reason to attack them? There are roadside bombs, of course. Those are bad, but I could almost swear those bombs were going off in Iraq years before Iran was mentioned as devising them, no?
We don't have to invade Iran. We could just bomb the crap out of them. Expensive, but no need to yet again deploy troops that have already gone into the field of battle three times. Or four. And we'd also get more footage of smart bombs pinpointing targets; haven't seen that in while. But then we'd better get the president of Iran with one of those bombs like we were supposed to "get" Osama. And Saddam. Otherwise, I imagine he'll button that top button, roll up his sleeves, leave the bedroom talk aside, and get serious...
But then weren't we also supposed to invade North Korea? A possible FOURTH front. That would make us truly busy indeed. I was surprised to find that the Korean War never officially ended. The sound of the movie announcer - "THE KOREAN WAR...This Time It's For Real!" No need to even declare war really; Truman took care of that detail.
People ask when we're going to get our troops back. Tired of war and death even if it is 10,000 miles away and relatively anti-septic (I mean relative to previous wars, not normalcy). Frankly, at this point, if the current president (of America) can get through the rest of his term without opening up a third front, I'd consider that a victory.
Also, since Colin Powell is no longer around, who will convince Americans and the world that there is a case for war? Does Iran have nukes or not? Anyone know? I would ask the president (of our country, not Iran) but as the feather duster said to the candelabra in Beauty and the Beast "I've been burned by you before."
If Iran does have nukes, or even if they might have nukes, wouldn't invading them or bombing them give them a reason to use them? Of course, if they don't have nukes, then is there another reason to attack them? There are roadside bombs, of course. Those are bad, but I could almost swear those bombs were going off in Iraq years before Iran was mentioned as devising them, no?
We don't have to invade Iran. We could just bomb the crap out of them. Expensive, but no need to yet again deploy troops that have already gone into the field of battle three times. Or four. And we'd also get more footage of smart bombs pinpointing targets; haven't seen that in while. But then we'd better get the president of Iran with one of those bombs like we were supposed to "get" Osama. And Saddam. Otherwise, I imagine he'll button that top button, roll up his sleeves, leave the bedroom talk aside, and get serious...
But then weren't we also supposed to invade North Korea? A possible FOURTH front. That would make us truly busy indeed. I was surprised to find that the Korean War never officially ended. The sound of the movie announcer - "THE KOREAN WAR...This Time It's For Real!" No need to even declare war really; Truman took care of that detail.
People ask when we're going to get our troops back. Tired of war and death even if it is 10,000 miles away and relatively anti-septic (I mean relative to previous wars, not normalcy). Frankly, at this point, if the current president (of America) can get through the rest of his term without opening up a third front, I'd consider that a victory.
posted by Steven at
8:50 AM
2 Comments:
Incredibly depressing, isn't it?
Four fronts? That would just be silly. Nobody would ever, ever, ever do that intentionally.
I think we were supposed to go to war with Iran right after we mopped up in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would put us on the right side of a multi-front war. I suppose Korea was going to be dessert, and a final refutation of the ancient wisdom "never get involved in a land war in Asia."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home